Thread: can the mind exist independent from the brain?

Very interesting discussion especially from Korittke
im trying to see what other people's opinions are instead of bringing up NDEs....

but i think it is possible if you view the brain like a television set. a machine that only puts the pictures together on the screen, but doesn’t actually create them from nothing. And the pictures (consciousness) are really being created somewhere else.

and just because the television set may be broken, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the pictures no longer exist. Just the apparatus no longer functions





PS: by Mind I meant clear lucid creative thought

An interesting debate, and one that I've thought about quite a lot. Firstly let me say that I think that the mind (defined as mental cognition - any act of thinking) and the brain are one and the same - I am a materialist (or physicalist, same difference).

In reaching this conclusion, I am therefore rejecting the notion of a soul, all forms of dualism, and I also reject the notion of qualia. I really want to respond to Korritke's post (very interesting - great post!) but first I think I'll stake my claim for materialism.

Dualism (the notion of mind being seperate from the brain) is very inviting, and I used to subscribe to it, but I think it is ultimately flawed. Just about every contemporary philosopher rejects it, it's most famous proponent Descartes has been ruthlessly picked apart, and the whole fields of psychiatry, medicine, cognitive neuroscience depend on dualism being false.

There is a huge correlation between the mind and the brain, and whole fields of research are dedicated to this. For one to argue for the seperation of mind and brain, these issues emerge:

1. If the mind is not physical, what is it made of?
2. If the mind is not physical, how does it seemingly have a causal effect upon the physical?
3. If the mind is not physical, why do we end with our death? Why are we 'anchored' to our bodies? Could we not be capable of swapping minds with another's body? Could our minds not survive our physical death?

I think that the first point is the most damaging to Dualism (again, the theory that mind is not identical with matter.) If the mind is not physical, what can it be? The definition of 'physical' is all matter contained in the universe. If the mind is thought to be some form of 'energy' it would still be physical. To be a seperate substance to all known physical matter is indeed challenging, although this is mainly a question of semantics, and it does not exactly counteract the argument of mind being seperate to the brain.

The second point is very much related to the first. In dualism, if the mind is nonphysical, how can it have an effect upon physical matter? To have a causal effect on physical matter, it would have to be physical itself. In everyday life we see a huge correlation between the brain and the mind. Take alcohol for example - we drink a beer and the alcohol in our blood affects the synapses in our brain and results in us becoming intoxicated. Our mental cognition is hampered - our decision-making, reaction time etc. All these things are 'the mind' and they are seemingly affected in a causal way by a physical chemical process in the brain. But this is just one example - think of drinking coffee, taking an asprin for a headache, taking LSD or any such substance.

The third point is pretty much self-explanatory. If our mind is seperate from our matter - our bodies, our brains - then what anchors our minds to us? Would it not be possible for two people to 'swap' minds?

But Korittke makes a very different argument. I'll adress that in a second post for better clarity. It's probably going to be a rather long post.

Sorry about the multiple post, but this one is dedicated solely to Korittke's intresting post.

Firstly, I reject the notion of qualia. I'll discuss that later.

Mind and brain correlate, that is, their informational content is exactly identical but of a different nature, and neither of them could be said to have causal influence on the other. Instead, they correlate by some universal process that translates neuron-states into mind-states (and vice versa) for no reason.
However, the physical universe has causal influence on the brain. Causal influences on the mind cannot be said to exist because qualia cannot access themselves and thus cannot analyze their qualia-influences. Since the physical universe is causally closed, it shall be assumed that qualia have no causal influences on their own.

I haven't studied casuality very much, but I have heard that someone (was it Kant?) provided a good argument against it. But casuality is a good working hypothesis, I guess. So I'll agree with assuming that casuality exists.
So in your argument above, you are arguing that the brain and the phenomenal mind (the mind as qualia) are related simply through correlation, but not causality? (I hope I'm understanding you right.)

I think that this argument is flawed. If we assume that changes in brain-state, as influenced by physical causality are then mirrored in the mind-state by the universal process, couldn't it then be said that the physical world does have a causal influence on the mind-state? Take the following situation for example:

1. An apple exists on the table in front of me. (physical state)
2. The light reflecting from the apple is detected by my retinae, which in turn send electrical signals to the visual cortex of my brain. (physical state affecting brain state causally)
3. My brain-state of 'seeing apple' is correlated by an informationally identical mind state as the result of the unknown universal process. For ease of discussion, I'll call the unknown universal process the Mirror-Process (I hope you don't disagree.)

So, to sum up what I think you're getting at, the physical state 'apple' causally produces the brain-state 'apple' which in turn produces the mental (qualia) state 'apple', but the mental state and the brain state are not causally linked. Is that right? It is simply a sort of 'mirror process' of correlation...

Why I think this is flawed is this:
If the mind state is informationally identical to the brain state, I assume that if we were to put a banana on the table, our mind state would change to 'banana'. I don't see how this is not a causal relationship, accepting that causality exists. By changing my brain state from 'apple' to 'banana', I am also changing my mind state from 'apple' to 'banana' in light of both states being informationally identical. I could not have the brain state 'apple' and the mind state 'banana'. This is causality - you stated that it occurred because of a 'universal process' - ie. there is some sort of mechanism that is making the mind state and the brain state correlate identically.

I find the idea of a correlation by an unknown process for no reason to be strange. I don't see why such an phenomena should be postulated. Furthermore, let's take a affectual example:

1. I have the mental state 'pick up apple.'
2. The 'mirror process' occurs (uknown universal process).
3. I have the brain state (informationally identical to the mental state) of 'pick up apple'
4. My brain sends the required electrical messages to my arm and, via a causal relation, I:
5. pick up the apple.

Now, there are a few objections to this. Firstly, the problem of causality, as I mentioned before: if I have the mind-state 'pick up apple' which is assumed to be a non-physical 'qualia' process, and I ultimately pick up the apple, which is a physical process, then aren't the two causally linked? This then produces the problem of how a nonphysical state can cause a physical state. I understand that your point is that the mental state and the brain state are not causally related but simply correlated in a mirror-like fashion, but that brings me to my next point. If the brain state and mental state are informationally identical and mirrored in a correlated way, then the brain state produces all that is required to pick up the apple: the brain state of 'pick up apple.' There is no need for a mental 'qualia' state at all - the brain could have done all the work by itself.

So, we have a dilemma. Either:

The brain-state is determined by the mental state, as in the case of picking up the apple. This would be a causal process.
Or,
The brain-state is not determined by the mental qualia state, simply being a mirrored correlate. There is then no need for a qualia state - the brain state can do all the work by itself.

This is really a question of which level of states we assume to be the originator of a 'decision-making process'. When I reach for the apple, does this originate at a qualia-level or a brain-level? If the former, then it can be called a 'causal process' and if the latter, there is no need for qualia at all.

From what you've said about qualia states being unable to access each other, I think you are implying the latter - that the qualia-mind level is a 'projection' if you will of what is going on in the brain level.

I think qualia and other such phenomenalistic notions of consciousness are philosophical illusions. I do think that consciousness can be fully explained through a reductive, scientific approach, whereby qualia are not present at all.

I assume that you've read Nagel's paper What is it like to be a bat? ? He argues that whatever attempts we have at scientifically and reductively explaining consciouness, we will never succeed because of the 'qualia' of what it is like to be a bat...

I disagree with this, and I've written a large essay on it just recently, but I guess I'll discuss it later, my eyes are about to fall out of my head

Hope I didn't misinterpret you! This should be a good debate!

Stop making so fucking huge posts, Roller.

Originally Posted by Matt5678

so once again..
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book,
Light and Death, includes a detailed medical and scientific analysis of a near-death experience of a woman named Pam Reynolds. She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques. She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead.

Her brain can still function to a certain extent, and the NDE experience is just the physical responses from the brain. It is dead, and goes into a panick like mode, where it does all kinds of things, to stay alive. That atleast how I understand it.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Her brain can still function to a certain extent, and the NDE experience is just the physical responses from the brain. It is dead, and goes into a panick like mode, where it does all kinds of things, to stay alive. That atleast how I understand it.

that is a very rational and plausible theory. but i think there are two big things wrong with it.

one problem....... three clinical tests commonly determine brain death. First, a standard electroencephalogram, or EEG, measures brain-wave activity. A "flat" EEG denotes non-function of the cerebral cortex - the outer shell of the cerebrum. Second, auditory evoked potentials, similar to those [clicks] elicited by the ear speakers in Pam's surgery, measure brain-stem viability. Absence of these potentials indicates non-function of the brain stem. And third, documentation of no blood flow to the brain is a marker for a generalized absence of brain function. But during "standstill", Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical tests and she still had an NDE with a clear lucid thought process. so i think if it was a hallucination brought on by anoxia it would have shown up on the EEG and the doctors would have immediately identified it.

second problem is how she identified what was going on around her accurately during her time in stand still. during this surgery the front her head was concealed. so i think its impossible that she somehow drifted in for a split second and saw what was going on. she could describe what doctor was standing where, which instrument was being used and the exact words the doctors were exchanging. this was later verified. by definition, since it really happened, it cant be a hallucination

there are other parts to Pam’s NDE than just the OBE. She described the usual but beautiful stories of most NDE’ers. seeing people made out of light. Seeing dead loved ones and having a close conversation religious figures. But the scientists who study them focus most on the OBE because that is where is can be verified or debunked.

Thanks for reading

Disregarding her description of the procedure, since I haven't heard her description, its possible that what she thinks she remembers as happening while she was in the "brain dead" state actually happened before it. Many people have theorized that NDE's are caused by the brain's last rush for life, in which brain processes speed up and make the time elapsed seem much longer than real time. She may have felt like she was conscious long enough to last the entire procedure but it may have actually have all happened during her last few moments of brain activity before they put her into stand still.

Of course, this scenario would be disproven if she actually described something that was done while she was brain dead and couldn't have made up. Her descriptions of brain surgery would be suspect in my mind however without some very specific piece of information. I'm sure I could describe brain surgery close enough to sound like a lay person who had watched one even though I never have. Do you happen to have a link to her actual description of the procedure?

Edit: Nevermind, I just looked it up on my own. Without really knowing the exact situation I can't make a decision one way or the other. There are questions I would have to pose to people present in order to form any sort of opinion. Could she have seen the instruments before they put her out? Its all very thought provoking but without seeing something like this first hand its hard to believe. Especially since EEG's only scan the outer cortex of the brain and it is possible that there was still a glimmer of activity deep in the middle of the brain.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Could she have seen the instruments before they put her out?

I dont think so, a surgery room is a sterile environment. In an interview the doctors said they didnt take the instruments out of the packaging until the patient was under.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Especially since EEG's only scan the outer cortex of the brain and it is possible that there was still a glimmer of activity deep in the middle of the brain.

Possible, I think the case of Pam Reynolds is very interesting the further you dig into it. But I would feel very uncomfortable calling it proof. The actual NDE storyof Pam may offer a little more evidence. During the end of the surgery she did drift away for a minute. The doctors had to use the defibrillator to bring her back.

At this time pam describes she was standing over her body with her uncle. Her uncle was trying to convince her to just jump it. “Its just like jumping into a swimming pool” he said. She was very hesitate not wanting to jump in. She reports her uncle pushed her and she fell into her body. That is when they doctors brought her back.

At this point I think that this case should inspire further research. Like the new project in the UK being launched by Dr. Sam Parnia. But you make some good skeptical arguments which I respect

Originally Posted by Roller

Recently, scientists have been able to induce OBE's by things such as electrodes, and even simple camera-delay setups.

I have discussed this on another thread. and its not really recent, its been around for a while. A lot of skeptics use the Electrode experiment and REM intrusion as proof NDEs are nothing special. If you compare the cases as many researchers have. You find that there are many differences between normal NDEs and Artificial NDEs. Just a few for example

Artificial
Spontaneously reported viewing only part of body (legs and lower trunk)
Normal
Spontaneous report implied viewing the entire body

Artificial
Reported distortion of body image (legs became shorter; arm shorter)
Normal
No reported distortion of body image


thanks for reading

Without wanting to get off-subject here, there have been no scientifically proven OBE's - at least, not in the dualist form. Recently, scientists have been able to induce OBE's by things such as electrodes, and even simple camera-delay setups. OBE's are frequently known to occur during surgery and times of heavy stress to the brain.

Funny thing is... even if OBEs are proven to be real - it still does not prove the mind can function without the brain, because as far as we know, an OBE is the result of some special brain activity. It would prove the mind can function without the physical body... but I think we already knew that from dreams.

I think the mind can function without the brain - but as far as identity goes, I believe that would be lost.

whatever happened to

I'm trying to see what other people's opinions are instead of bringing up NDEs....

?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

whatever happened to
?....

Originally Posted by Matt5678

im trying to see what other people's opinions are instead of bringing up NDEs.... :roll

well then this came up

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Then go forth and find me a conscious brain dead person...

how could i not mention NDEs after that question? the conversation just kinda took that turn

Oops voted yes, i ment maybe because i don't know.

Originally Posted by Matt5678

that is a very rational and plausible theory. but i think there are two big things wrong with it.

one problem....... three clinical tests commonly determine brain death. First, a standard electroencephalogram, or EEG, measures brain-wave activity. A "flat" EEG denotes non-function of the cerebral cortex - the outer shell of the cerebrum. Second, auditory evoked potentials, similar to those [clicks] elicited by the ear speakers in Pam's surgery, measure brain-stem viability. Absence of these potentials indicates non-function of the brain stem. And third, documentation of no blood flow to the brain is a marker for a generalized absence of brain function. But during "standstill", Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical tests and she still had an NDE with a clear lucid thought process. so i think if it was a hallucination brought on by anoxia it would have shown up on the EEG and the doctors would have immediately identified it.

second problem is how she identified what was going on around her accurately during her time in stand still. during this surgery the front her head was concealed. so i think its impossible that she somehow drifted in for a split second and saw what was going on. she could describe what doctor was standing where, which instrument was being used and the exact words the doctors were exchanging. this was later verified. by definition, since it really happened, it cant be a hallucination

there are other parts to Pam’s NDE than just the OBE. She described the usual but beautiful stories of most NDE’ers. seeing people made out of light. Seeing dead loved ones and having a close conversation religious figures. But the scientists who study them focus most on the OBE because that is where is can be verified or debunked.

Thanks for reading

I read on this site somewhere there is a 2nd side to that story, the skeptics saying the machines were not working properly, if that's true then this story has no credibility IMO. As hard as it probably is i hope someone can make it passed the time and prove to everyone it's real, unless of course it's impossible because the body will be dead forever, then this will never end because it's an impossible task.